TEHRAN — Bennett Johnston, an American politician in the Democratic Party and lobbyist who represented Louisiana in the United States Senate is the current chairman of the American-Iranian Council. Mr. Johnston is of the opinion that under the present circumstances, neither the EU nor Iran would accept Trump’s new conditions that undermine the Iran nuclear contract. “We know that President Trump’s team – that is the Secretary of Defense, the National Security Adviser and Secretary of State publicly and strongly are in favor of the continuation of the agreement,” Johnston tells the Tehran Times. The Chairman of the American-Iranian Council also adds that “it is clearly not in the interest of the U.S. or Iran to withdraw from the JCPOA.” Following is the text of the interview:

The Trump administration’s recently issued National Security Strategy for 2017 has already sunk from public sight. Judged by its content, that is as it should be. As The New York Times reflected when the NSS was issued, both its tone and substance were in marked contrast to the remarks that President Donald made at its unveiling, which contained more of the sharp edges his foreign and domestic policies usually possess.

In any event, the annual NSS is a bastard document. Congress mandated its preparation and public issuance in the 1986 Goldwater-Nichols Act as a means for Capitol Hill to try getting a handle on the administration’s foreign and national security policy. But over the years, few if any of these documents have measured up to the task. Most important, the NSS is not operational: that is, it contains no decisions about foreign policy, defense, and the all-important appropriations to make them work. The Office of Management and Budget plays that role in its annual budget submissions to Congress. At the Pentagon, that role is played by the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), from which cascade progressively more granular documents that culminate in spending requests. The NSS itself has no practical effect.

On Thursday, November 30th, 2017 former ambassadors Thomas Pickering and Seyed Hossein Mousavian discussed US-Iran relations and the JCPOA (otherwise known as the “Iran Nuclear Deal”) at an event at Hamilton College moderated by Emad Kiyaei. Pickering served as the Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, as well as US Ambassador to the United Nations, Russia, India, Israel, and Jordan. Mousavian served as the Iranian Ambassador to Germany, Head of the Foreign Relations Committee on Iran’s National Security Council, General Director of the Foreign Ministry for West Europe, and as Iran’s spokesman during the P5+1 nuclear negotiations. Kiyaei is the Sol M. Linowitz Visiting Professor at Hamilton College, a principal at the IGD group, and a policy advisor to the AIC.

AIC's President Dr. Amirahmadi recently spoke with Radio Farda regarding US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson's explanation of US policy towards Iran. The audio is in Persian; the English translation is below.

Translated and transcribed by: Celine Aslinia

After meeting with his counterpart in New Delhi, India, US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said that America’s policy towards Iran had three axes: “one was dealing with the nuclear agreement between Iran and 5 + 1 countries. The second important pillar of that policy is to deal with Iran’s other destabilizing activities.” The ‘destabilizing activities’ [Tillerson] mentioned included the manufacturing of ballistic missiles, procurement of weapons for terrorist groups, delivery of fighters to foreign countries, and intervention in Yemen, Syria, and other areas. [Tillerson continued], “And the third pillar - which does not get talked about much - is a support for moderate voices inside of Iran. We know there are strong feelings and values inside of Iran that we want to promote in terms of one day the Iranian people being able to retake control of their government.”

President Donald Trump has taken the first step toward pulling the United States out of the international agreement that is preventing the development of an Iranian nuclear weapon.

With no factual basis, this decision looms like pure domestic politics over America’s international commitments and leadership. Trust is the coin of the realm in foreign affairs, and we have just begun to debase it in the eyes of much of the world. Who will make a deal with us if we can confect a reason out of thin air to pull out of our agreements? U.S. leadership is imperiled, especially in dealing with Iran and North Korea.

Please note: This is a summary of a paper to be presented at Cambridge University on November 1, 2017

The speech will start with the question: where does Iran stand today and what could happen to its future given the many forces at play, domestically and internationally? I will argue that the Iranian political system is at a standstill as the political Islam that guides it has lost its organizing and development potentials for real change. Iran is also facing the challenge posed by the Trump administration, who is hostile to its Islamic ideology and behavior. This is the case for a country in which no other serious ideas have emerged to challenge the establishment’s ideology. I will argue that the void can be filled by the nation-builder idea of “Nationism” (mellat garaei).

Stephanie Lester, AIC's Director of OperationsOriginally published in the Huffington Post

A total solar eclipse passed through the U.S. mainland this past August and I had the wonderful opportunity to view it. It was, coincidentally, the very “same” eclipse I had seen in Iran eighteen years earlier. It’s called a saros: a repeating pattern of eclipses that happens every eighteen years, eleven days and eight hours, when the “same” eclipse appears one third of the way around the world.

Typically, celestial wonders remind us that human beings and our politics and activities are insignificant in the grand scheme of things, but this eclipse had the opposite effect on me. Given the locations from which I viewed the respective events, I focused instead on how frustratingly little US-Iran relations had changed during the saros period – the continued lack of diplomatic relations and rampant mistrust between the countries. In a way, the saros pattern of eclipses reflected for me the obstinate way in which humans are unable to break from their own familiar historical and political patterns.

Dr. Amirahmadi recently spoke with Voice to America about President Trump's speech to the UN. The audio and a summary are below.

What was the response by Iran to Trump’s speech?

There were reactions right after his speech by President Rouhani, who spoke at the same podium at the UN, and then a few days later by the leader of the Islamic Republic, Ayatollah Khamenei. Both of them obviously rejected Mr. Trump’s claim and said that those words were humiliating, insulting and “ignorant.” They were particularly reacting to President Trump’s statement regarding not just the nuclear issue, but Iran’s human rights situation, whereby President Trump basically said to the Iranian people that their government is a bad government that abuses human rights, misuses resources and spends their money in Syria, Iraq, Yemen and elsewhere; saying that with this government they will not have a good economy or even a future… In a way the talk was really a regime change talk. Although he never used the words regime change, but it was obvious he was trying to entice the people against the regime.

Tehran apparently refuses to view US President Donald Trump as an opportunity and Iranian parliament’s recent motion in response to the new US sanctions would yield no positive results, a US-based expert told Trend.

Iran's lawmakers overwhelmingly approved a motion on Sunday in response to recent US sanctions, voting to boost spending on Tehran's missile program and the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps' defense mechanism, local media outlets reported.

"If I was Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, I would have not accused President Trump of planning to kill the JCPOA. Such accusations are simply not helpful and are indeed counterproductive. Instead, I would have sent a message, even indirectly, to President Trump urging him to stay with the deal and offer to hear his concerns. Tehran must understand that Trump is both a threat and an opportunity. To view him as a threat only could lead to a disastrous situation between the two nations," President American Iranian Council Hooshang Amirahmadi said.

The new US sanctions on Iran is a bad news for everyone, including the JCPOA (the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action), Iran, the EU and others not involved in the nuclear deal, Hooshang Amirahmadi, president of the American Iranian Council (AIC), told Trend.

The US House of Representatives and Senate voted overwhelmingly last week to slap new sanctions on Iran, Russia and North Korea, but the bill, in order to become a law, needs to be signed by President Donald Trump.

Amirahmadi said that the new sanctions will loosen commitments to the deal, prevent Iran from fully benefiting from the JCPOA, and increase tension between the US and some of Iran’s major trading partners.

AIC's Emad Kiyaei spoke with branding expert Brian Rashid about the tech scene in Iran in this 10 minute segment.

Some highlights are below:

On Iran's openness to external entrepreneurship in the country:

"Iran is very supportive of this. Now, is it easy to get into Iran? No, because of all of the regulations, especially for the Americans. The rest of the world has removed their sanctions to a large extent. I was recently in Iran and we couldn’t even stay in a hotel because there are so many delegations from Europe and Asia trying to get into literally the last frontier in an emerging market. So, whereas every other market has been saturated, Iran has a population of 80 million, a vast economy, with a huge market... wouldn’t you want to get into it? I would! If you are an entrepreneur you will have a bigger appetite for risk and if your product or service has a nuanced place in the Iranian market, there are ways to get in. Now, let me put in a little caveat. There are U.S. sanctions still in place on Iran so you have to be very careful. I am not saying just jump into the Iranian market. There are exemptions to the rules, and those can be identified. But as my lawyer would tell me right now, please consult your lawyer before you make any other moves."

Originally published on The LobeLogBy Shireen T. Hunter, former AIC Board Member

Since the Soviet Union dissolved in December 1991, articles have appeared in the West arguing that, sooner or later, Iran’s ethnic and linguistic diversity will lead it to go the way of the USSR and dissolve into several states. Moreover, subscribers to this theory believe that the United States should encourage such a disintegrative process by further isolating Iran economically and politically, while also supporting its separatist elements.

Others, meanwhile, talk about a wholesale rearranging of Middle East/West Asia borders along ethnic and sectarian lines. One such article was “Blood Borders” by Lt. Colonel Ralph Peters, published in The Armed Forces Journal. Now that the Trump administration has again put regime change in Iran on the US agenda, similar articles have again proliferated.

Given the fast-moving events in the Persian Gulf region over the past two weeks, LobeLog decided to consult Chas W. Freeman, Jr., whose occasional lectures on key foreign policy issues have been featured on this site for several years. Washington’s ambassador to Saudi Arabia during the first Gulf War, Freeman has a wide range of contacts in the region. One of the most highly decorated foreign service officers of his generation, he also served as assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs at the Pentagon, among many other posts. We conducted this interview by telephone Monday.

The appointment of Michael D' Andrea, a professional CIA field operator, is certainly a bad news for US-Iran relations and signals a determined shift in Washington D.C. towards regime destabilization and possible change in Tehran.

US President Donald Trump himself was not originally for regime change in Iran but the team he has created in CIA, National Security Council, Pentagon, and to some extent in the State Department, is all extremely hawkish towards Iran.

AIC Chairman Senator Johnston was interviewed by Javad Heirannia from Tehran Times. The interview was originally published in the Tehran Times.

Following is the text of the interview:

Q: What is your assessment of Trump’s foreign policy?

A: Critics of President Trump say that he has no foreign policy (or domestic policy for that matter), that it is all made up off-handily from day to day. The best face for his foreign policy is that it resides in the hands of Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, National Security Advisor H. R. McMaster, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, and CIA Director Mike Pompeo (the “Big Four”).

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson certified to Congress that Iran was complying with Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), or Iran nuclear deal, before a statutory midnight deadline, while also insisting Iran remained "a leading state sponsor of terror through many platforms and methods" and indicating that the Trump administration would evaluate the JCPOA-related suspension of sanctions and whether it was "vital to the national security interests of the United States."

"President Trump… has realized that tearing up a highly complex and multinational agreement is not a wise thing to do at this time," Farideh Farhi, an independent scholar and affiliate graduate faculty member at University of Hawaii-Manoa, told Reason.

"Note that under the Nuclear Agreement Review Act, the president has to provide certification every 90 days. Had the Trump administration not done so, it would have triggered legislative procedures and potential reimpositions of sanctions, which would then declare the U.S. intent to renege on its JCPOA obligations," she added.

Originally published on The LobeLogBy Shireen T. Hunter, former AIC Board Member

Iran has been a major supporter of Bashar al-Assad, Syria’s beleaguered president, throughout its civil war, which has entered its sixth year. In fact, until Russia decided to conduct airstrikes in Syria in September 2015, Iran was the only country that actively and meaningfully supported the Syrian regime. In addition to providing military and other support, Iran also enlisted the backing of Lebanon’s Hezbollah for Assad. As volunteers from Sunni states and communities poured in to join various Sunni terrorist groups in Syria, including the Islamic State (ISIS or IS), Iran mobilized Shia volunteers from Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, the so-called “Defenders of the Shrines,” to join the fighting on the Assad’s side.

Originally published on The LobeLogby Robert E. Hunter, AIC Board Member

Last week, President Donald J. Trump began moving from words and executive orders to the basic stuff of foreign policy and national security. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) delivered its budget estimates under the headline: “America First: A Budget Blueprint to Make America Great Again.” Over the next several months, Congress will decide out how much of this blueprint to use in building the government’s structure for the next fiscal year. This includes the hardware and software and “people-ware” of the tools of American statecraft.

It was no surprise that, as promised, President Trump is asking for a hefty rise in money for the Pentagon, more than 10%, or $52 billion, from the appropriation signed into law by President Barack Obama last December. This brings the total to $639 billion and is the sharpest rise since President Ronald Reagan sought to intimate the Soviet Union during the Cold War. As OMB put it: “This increase alone exceeds the entire defense budget of most countries.”

Originally published on The LobeLogBy, Ambassador Chas W. Freeman, Jr, AIC Board Member

A hundred and fifty years ago, a German physicist derived the concept of “entropy” from the second law of thermodynamics. Since then, entropy has stood for the idea that everything in the universe eventually moves from order to disorder, from structure to formlessness, and from predictability to uncertainty. Entropy is the measurement of that change. It is also the most fitting description of current trends in geopolitics and geoeconomics.

The strategic stabilities of the old order are all in various stages of decay. Some in my country and abroad had come to view the United States as the next best thing to a world government and global policeman. But, even before tweets replaced policy papers in Washington, this conception had become preposterous. The established presumptions no longer operate.

By Stephanie Lester, Director of OperationsOriginally published on the Huffington Post

Since the 1979 revolution, the US and Iranian governments have always had their differences, but US policy has generally focused on opposing the government of Iran; not the Iranian people. With yesterday’s new blanket ban on immigration from Iran (one of seven Muslim-majority countries targeted), President Trump is going well beyond US precedent and taking steps directly against Iran’s population.

Even if banning entire countries were an effective way to fight terrorism (which it is not), the inclusion of Iran in this ban is extremely hard to justify. While the list does not include the countries of origin for the 19 hijackers in the September 11 attacks, it includes Iran because its government is a state sponsor of terror; not because of the actions of its citizens. In fact, not a single Iranian national has committed an act of terror against the US homeland

In this wide-ranging interview he describes how the Nuclear Deal didn't go far enough, how he doesn't believe Iran ever intended to produce a nuclear weapon, and how Iran is now in a "trap," which the Trump administration will exploit.

He explains, "The official policy of the Trump administration [moving forward will be to] keep the deal as a trap for Iran, and then on the periphery, create trouble for Iran by adding more sanctions using human rights and terrorism and Israel as pretext to add more and more of the sanctions, forcing Iran into a situation where either it takes it or leaves. In either case Iran will be a loser. That is the concept of the trap. I believe that is the official policy. It is only unfortunate that Iran got itself into that trap, as opposed to opening up to a more comprehensive deal with the United States where everything was on the table, including the nuclear issue, but unfortunately that didn't happen and Iran is in the trap."

AIC Chairman Senator Johnston spoke with Mehr News about Trump and the Nuclear Deal. The article was originally published in Mehr News.

The interview in its original English, as well as the Persian translation, are below.

Q: During the presidential campaign, President-Elect Donald Trump claimed that President Obama gave too many points to Iran in the nuclear deal and said he would re-negotiate the deal. What will Trump actually do?

A: I don’t believe that Trump would actually renounce the agreement. He may try to put on some additional sanctions (not under JCPOA but under other provisions), but I don’t believe he will renounce the agreement.

He explains that, "From the American side, almost ninety five percent of the American sanctions on Iran are still in place. Americans only lifted sanctions related to nuclear programs on Iran. So if you are a US entity, sanctions almost completely remain, except for certain areas where there are humanitarian issues, or if you are under license from the treasury department. So, unfortunately from the US side, sanction relief remains very illusory, very little has happened."

By Stephanie Lester, Director of Operations Originally published on the Huffington Post

With the election of Donald J. Trump, now more than ever, it is important to separate truth from fiction, facts from opinion, and to question prejudices and misconceptions. This directive applies in all areas of life, but perhaps no place on earth is more misunderstood, and worth a re-examination, than the country of Iran; particularly as U.S.-Iran relations enter a new phase of uncertainty.

On the whole, Americans tend to view Iran as a backward country, mired in extremism and averse to modernity. Anyone who travels there is considered crazy – or even suspicious.

I should know. I am a Jewish-American woman who recently traveled to Iran alone for 10 days with the express goal of proving that - contrary to expectation - the country is safe, beautiful, and welcoming to Americans. Before my travel, I had to explain to friends and family that there are no roaming hordes of ISIS militants in Iran; upon my return, I had to convince members of U.S. Homeland Security that I was not a terrorist sympathizer during nearly two hours of detention and questioning.

AIC Policy Advisor Emad Kiyaei told BBC, “The announcement by President Rouhani that Iran aims to develop nuclear-powered vessels does not violate the letter of the nuclear,” adding “however, this action goes against the spirit of the deal and could lead to proactive coercive action by the United States through further sanctions, particularly with a Republican-led Congress and White House.”

Speech at Haas School of Business, UC BerkeleyDelivered December 4, 2016

By: AIC's President, Dr. Hooshang Amirahmadi

Let me begin by noting that I am not using “Trumpism” to mean a coherent ideological system, which it is not. Rather Trumpism is a constellation of often contradictory or inconsistent ideas that together point towards a certain ideological orientation. I must also note that the arguments presented here are tentative as Trumpism is an evolving “America First” movement with no set direction as yet. This fluidity notwithstanding, I believe it is possible to decipher the key features of President-Elect Donald Trump’s public-policy agendas (domestic and international) for the U.S. political-economy, which will be centered on rejecting globalism for Americanism – “To Make America Great Again.”

Professor Hooshang Amirahmadi will be visiting London on December 10-14 to speak at a private gathering and meet board members and friends.

His talk on "Trump and Iran: Prospects for Trade and Investment" will take place on Tuesday, December 13, 2016, at 3-5 pm.

The event is organized by the Targetfollow Group, Ltd. in collaboration with the British Iranian Chamber of Commerce (BICC).

Participation is by invitation and location of the event will be announced to the confirmed participants only. The organizers are confirming the participants, but the AIC can also add a few to their list.

If you are interested in joining the event or privately meeting Dr. Amirahmadi, please send him an email at hooshang@amirahmadi.com.

Trump Means BusinessOriginally published on The Cipher BriefBy Emad Kiyaei, Director of External Affairs; American Iranian Council

The 2016 U.S. Presidential Election is fraught with uncertainty, for the electorate and political establishment. It is no surprise, then, that even as Americans are fumbling their way through this election labyrinth, the rest of the world is lost in the same maze. With the U.S.’s major military, economic and political presence in the Middle East, the elections cannot be ignored. Hence, the Iranian political establishment is closely observing the contest, as it will impact Iran’s own and regional security. The Iranian Government’s primary interest in the outcome of the U.S. elections is concerned with how a new U.S. administration under either candidate would affect four key areas.